American Election 2012

[EvilNed]

Easily equatable to the procent of alcohol in an alcoholic beverage. Just because you can get a hold of illegal 90% alcoholic homebrew doesn't mean that's what you want. What most people drink is actually beer or wine, which both are rather weak. As you say, it's not rocket science.

[babomb]

There's different levels of potency in existence already, some of which vastly outstrip the potency that was available 20 or 30 years ago. I'm not talking about creating new strains. My point is, that in the case of legalisation, I cannot see governments simply giving a pass to all strains of marijuana. They would, in all likelihood, restrict the THC level within the legit sales, as with the current situation that is under discussion in Holland, the test case for all such legalisation/decriminalisation proposals. Thus, the criminal element undercuts those sales with sales of the higher rated product. Again, this isn't rocket science. It's very simple to understand. There's no way to control that. Because a strain that contains a certain amount of THC will only contain that amount if grown under very strict conditions. You can't just plant a seed and have it come out with the same THC amount everytime. And you could plant a strain with a low level of THC and modify the grow conditions, ie-hydroponics, and increase the THC content. You can also create hybrid strains. The THC content in any particular strain also increases over successive generations. So there's really no way to regulate that, and more importantly, no way to enforce such regulations. You would have to restrict cultivation to only licensed growers, and periodically do checks on those growers and test every strain. You would also have to have a way for law enforcement to do field tests on any pot found on someone to make sure it's within the legal limit for THC content. Which, in any case, is not legalization, it's regulation. In the case of full legalization, anyone can grow their own marijuana. And create hash products if they desire. So if it's legal, and someone grows their own and trades it or sells it, they aren't criminals they're farmers. And higher THC content only means you need less of it to get the desired high. It doesn't mean that higher THC levels cross over from a traditional THC high into the realm of a narcotic high. Hash(or resin as you call it) is made simply by removing the THC glands from the plant. Which forms a brownish black putty like material. The most common way to make it is to put a bunch of marijuana into a drum or bucket with a screen on the bottom and shaking and "drumming" the top of the container. I suppose you could stretch the definition of the term 'manufacturing' to cover that, but that's not really accurate. And in the end you aren't left with anything you didn't already have, you aren't increasing the potency of the THC by collecting it from the plant. It also evens out when you use it because you still only need as much as you need for the desired effect. When you use hash, you use considerably less of it than you would plain marijuana because it's concentrated. But you're still getting the exact same substance as you would by smoking the plant itself. Hash products are not chemically processed super forms of THC. It's just THC with the plant material removed from the equation. MY point is that you're basing your view on alot of assumptions without an in-depth understanding of the concepts. And you use buzz words to describe ideas, like "harder product" "manufactured product" "criminal element". So it's kind of like decoding political propaganda. Harder product=potent strains. Which are not actually "harder", they're naturally produced properties of a typical plant. Manufactured product=sifted marijuana with the plant material removed. Which is as accurate as saying that creating meringue from egg whites is a "manufactured" product, or juicing your own vegetables is a "manufactured product". Criminal element=anyone who chooses to grow their own or get some from a friend who does. It's like you got your ideas on this right from a CIA or DEA document. I know I'll never change your mind on this, and I'm not trying to. At this point i'm just trying to provide a realistic perspective to others reading this. Because yours reads like a DEA press release...

[AcesandEights]

With the original election topic completely and utterly derailed and lines drawn in the sand on the current topic, I'm going to lock the thread. If people want to continue the conversation, feel it's going to be a constructive conversation and not a merry-go-round (like it has become), let me know via PM and I can split off the drug debate into a new thread. Thanks.